Skip to main content
Medium reported severity Internal Action

UK: a trades-college staff member says a student reported that a video showing her undressing, which appeared to be a manipulated version of an apparently real video of her talking with a student, was circulating among classmates; she stepped away from the class for weeks and says the atmosphere had chilled on her return

WIRED (Caroline Haskins, 24 August 2026) reports the account of a staff member at a UK college that trains 16-to-19-year-olds in trades such as construction, whose job combines administration with a counselling role; WIRED identifies her by first name only, which is not repeated here. She says administrators told her this winter that a student had reported two videos circulating among classmates: one apparently real, showing her talking with a student, and one that appeared to be a manipulated version showing her taking her clothes off and dancing in underwear or a bikini. The student she suspected denied making it when questioned and soon dropped out. The college let her step away from the class for a few weeks and educated students about deepfakes; she says the atmosphere had chilled when she returned and that the episode has made her more cautious. The college did not respond to WIRED.

AI system
Unidentified video tool (suspected)
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
24 August 2026
Event location
United Kingdom
What the AI did
Depicted or impersonated the person
Reported harm
Psychological DistressProfessional Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Work · Education · Privacy
Evidence
AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source
3 claims: 3 reported. 5 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Unidentified tool suspected of producing what appeared to be a manipulated version of an apparently real video of her; WIRED says the teachers it interviewed allege their students made the content, likely using AI, and the college's response addressed deepfakes; the tool is not named

What Happened

WIRED reports the account of a staff member at a UK college that trains students aged 16 to 19 in trades such as construction. Her job combines administrative duties such as taking attendance with a college-counsellor role, and she says she meets about 150 students individually each year. She says that this winter administrators told her that a student had filed a report claiming two videos were circulating among his classmates. One appeared to be real and showed her having a conversation with a student. The other, administrators said, appeared to be a manipulated version of the first, showing her taking her clothes off and dancing around in what was either underwear or a bikini. As a qualified youth worker she often discusses subjects students may be too embarrassed to raise with their parents, and she says she had several such conversations with the student she suspected of creating the video. The student denied it when questioned by administrators and soon dropped out. The college did not respond to WIRED's request for comment. She says the episode made her reflect on those conversations and question everything. The college gave her permission to step away from the class for a few weeks and took steps to educate students about the danger of creating or distributing deepfakes. She says the atmosphere had chilled when she returned; she still loves her work but says it has made her more cautious and vigilant. WIRED introduces the teachers it interviewed as alleging that their students made sexualised photos and videos of them, likely using AI. WIRED does not name the college or say where in the UK it is, gives no date beyond this winter, and reports no technical assessment of the video.

Reported harm

A manipulated video showing her undressing was reported to be circulating among students; she stepped away from the class for a few weeks, says the atmosphere had chilled on her return and that she is now more cautious with students (her account to WIRED).

Outcome

Unknown

Administrators questioned the student she suspected, who denied making the video and soon dropped out. The college gave her permission to step away from the class for a few weeks and took steps to educate students about the danger of creating or distributing deepfakes. The college did not respond to WIRED. No police, platform or legal action is reported.

What remains unknown

  • Which college, and where in the UK.
  • The date, beyond this winter in an August 2026 report.
  • Who made the manipulated video and with what tool.
  • How widely the video circulated and whether it was removed.
  • The college's position; it did not respond to WIRED.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: suspected. Administrators described the second video as appearing to be a manipulated version of the first video, which appeared to be real; WIRED introduces the teachers as alleging their students made the content, likely using AI, and the college's response was education about deepfakes. The suspected student denied making it. No tool is named and no technical assessment is reported.

3 claims: 3 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported A staff member at a UK college that trains 16-to-19-year-olds in trades says administrators told her this winter that a student had reported two videos circulating among classmates: one apparently real video of her talking with a student, and a second that appeared to be a manipulated version showing her taking her clothes off and dancing in underwear or a bikini.

Causal attribution. Her account of what administrators told her; the AI attribution is not established in the reporting.

  • wired.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'works for a UK college that trains students aged 16 to 19 in trades like construction.'; 'This winter, she says, school administrators told her that a student filed a report claiming two videos were circulating among his classmates.'; 'One appeared to be real, and it showed her having a conversation with a student.'; 'The other one, they said, appeared to be a manipulated version of the first. But instead of talking to the student, it showed her taking her clothes off and dancing around in what was either underwear or a bikini.'
  • wired.com(opens in new tab) context · English
    'WIRED spoke with three other teachers who allege that their students made sexualized photos and videos of them, likely using AI.'
Reported The student she suspected of creating the video denied it when questioned by administrators and soon dropped out; the college did not respond to WIRED.

Causal attribution. Who made the video is unresolved: she suspected a student, who denied it.

  • wired.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'She says she had several of those conversations with the student she suspected had created the video. The student denied it when questioned by administrators and soon dropped out of the school.'; '(The college did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment.)'
Reported The college gave her permission to step away from the class for a few weeks and educated students about creating or distributing deepfakes; she says the episode made her question her earlier conversations with the student, that the atmosphere had chilled when she returned, and that it has made her more cautious and vigilant.

Causal attribution. Her own description of the effect on her; the college's actions are known through her.

  • wired.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Afterward, the college gave her permission to step away from the class for a few weeks and took steps to educate students about the danger of creating or distributing deepfakes. But when she returned, she says, the atmosphere had chilled.'; 'It makes me reflect as well on those conversations'; 'It makes you question everything'; 'definitely made me a bit more cautious, a bit more vigilant when it comes to folks.'

Sources

1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read live on 2026-10-02 (HTTP 200; WIRED, Caroline Haskins, 24 August 2026); visible text and the page JSON-LD articleBody saved and compared with the 2026-09-30 fetch (article text unchanged). Her account is given in her own words and in WIRED's paraphrase; WIRED identifies her by first name only; the college did not respond to WIRED. Applies to s1.

Event countries: United Kingdom. Affected-person countries: United Kingdom. Court countries: Unknown.

WIRED says she works for a UK college and that administrators told her a student had reported the videos circulating among his classmates. No nation within the UK, town or college is named. No court proceeding is reported.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-02: Published under the charter's personal-account rule as a concrete account by an adult college staff member who spoke to a journalist about her own case (depicted_or_impersonated): a manipulated video showing her undressing was reported to be circulating among students, she stepped away from the class for weeks and describes a lasting effect on her work. One reporting chain (WIRED); AI involvement is suspected and the suspected student denied making it. She and the students are not named.

People described

A staff member at a UK college that trains 16-to-19-year-olds in trades, whose job combines administrative work with a counselling role; WIRED gives her first name only, which is not repeated here; the students are not identified

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One staff member describes being depicted. The student shown in the original conversation video is not described as harmed and is not counted. Exact count 1.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). UK: a trades-college staff member says a student reported that a video showing her undressing, which appeared to be a manipulated version of an apparently real video of her talking with a student, was circulating among classmates; she stepped away from the class for weeks and says the atmosphere had chilled on her return. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-uk-trades-college-staff-member-reported-manipulated-undressing-video

BibTeX

@misc{2026_uk_trades_college_staff_member_reported_manipulated_undressing_video,
  title = {UK: a trades-college staff member says a student reported that a video showing her undressing, which appeared to be a manipulated version of an apparently real video of her talking with a student, was circulating among classmates; she stepped away from the class for weeks and says the atmosphere had chilled on her return},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-uk-trades-college-staff-member-reported-manipulated-undressing-video}
}

Related cases

Medium Unidentified image tool

Los Banos, California: a substitute teacher says a sexualised AI image of him made from an old selfie circulated among middle-school students on TikTok and Snapchat and was used by a student account impersonating him; one student received in-school suspension and he stopped taking assignments at the middle school

WIRED (Caroline Haskins, 24 August 2026) reports the account of a substitute teacher in Los Banos, California, who spoke to WIRED by name (not repeated here). On 12 March 2026 a co-worker at his other job told him an AI photo was circulating on social media; the image reused a mirror selfie he had taken at a job in college but showed him in lingerie, posing suggestively. He traced an account sharing it on TikTok to a student at the middle school where he regularly substituted and reported it to the assistant principal; that evening he found a second account, created by a different student, impersonating him under a misspelled version of his name with the image as its profile picture. Over the following weeks he dealt with administrators, parents and the police; one student who admitted creating the image received an in-school suspension. He says the image was also shared on Snapchat, kept spreading among students and drew crude sexual comments on his TikTok account. He told administrators he would not take assignments at the middle school until the matter was addressed; at the local high school the same image was AirDropped to him during a class. WIRED says the district did not respond to its request for comment. He said he does not feel safe returning to the district. The Los Banos Enterprise (25 August 2026) summarised the WIRED account; no independent local reporting was found.

Medium Unidentified video tool (suspected)

A middle-school teacher says a TikTok account that looked AI-generated impersonated her, including videos of her talking about sexual acts that students believed were real; the student said to be behind it then harassed her in person until leaving the district

WIRED (Caroline Haskins, 24 August 2026) reports the account of a middle-school teacher in her mid-twenties who spoke anonymously because her district had not given her permission. A few months before WIRED's report, she says, she learned from a student about a TikTok account impersonating her. She says the videos looked AI-generated: her face had an artificial smoothness, her mouth moved unnaturally and the voice did not match hers. Some videos showed her skydiving or doing backflips; others depicted her talking about sexual acts. She says many of the students who warned her believed it was her account. She told her principal and says she was still unnerved by it; some students told her a classmate had made it, and after she asked students to report it the account was quickly taken down. She says the same student then harassed her in person with escalating insults; the principal removed the student from her class, and the harassment continued until the student left the district. WIRED gives no location for her school.

High Unidentified image tool

Jeju: a middle-school student who secretly filmed teachers at his school and turned some of the footage into sexual deepfake composites was referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September 2026 and, per the victim teachers, to a court's juvenile division as a juvenile protection case on 24 September; police say the victims are teachers (five, per Yonhap-chain reports; police withheld the number) plus one student at a different school and no student at the school itself, while one victim teacher says 10-20 current students and a graduate also appear in the footage; the teachers report two months of treatment while teaching daily, police questioning without a lawyer and a legal-aid dispute with the education office, which apologised on 29 September for support that was not felt

Jeju Dongbu police announced on 23 September 2026 that a student at a middle school on Jeju had been referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September for violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming with a camera or similar device). The student's phone was voluntarily submitted by his guardians and forensically examined; the examination found footage relating to some teachers and some sexual composites, and the student admitted the conduct. News1 reported that the student was booked for filming a teacher's body with his phone during a school field trip around mid-July 2026, that the offending had continued for several months with multiple victims, and that police found no indication the composites had been distributed. Police told Seoul Shinmun there were more victim teachers than the one first reported but withheld the number to avoid secondary harm, and that no student at the school was a victim; the Jeju teachers' union questioned whether the full scope of harm had been established. According to the union, two months on the victim teachers were receiving hospital treatment and counselling while teaching daily, gave police statements on 14 September without a lawyer, attended the regional teachers' rights protection committee on 17 September without institutional support, wrote the criminal complaint themselves, and were offered 3.3 million won in legal fees for all of them together, payable after the case ends; two requests to meet the superintendent were not accepted. On 29 September one of the victim teachers gave a press interview at the Jeju Teachers' Union office. She said that early in the investigation she had seen on the student's phone material showing other teachers and current students, had made a list of the people and types of harm, and that the material shown to her at the police victim examination was considerably less than what she had seen; Yonhap-chain outlets quote her as saying the students she recognised numbered 10 to 20 and that a graduate had suffered worse deepfakes. She said investigators asked the school only to identify the perpetrator and never requested material to identify the students in the footage, and that the school sent parents a letter premised on there being no student victims. Police replied that phone forensics had been thorough, that every act beyond social norms had been identified and proven, and that one student victim had been confirmed, a student at a different school. The teachers were notified on 22 September that the case had gone to the prosecution and on 24 September that it had been sent to the court's juvenile division as a juvenile protection case, before they had submitted further evidence and a victim opinion. The teacher said the original complaint had also asked police to examine whether physical contact in 2025 was forcible molestation and whether repeated approaching and waiting in 2026 was stalking, and Halla Ilbo reports that such conduct is said to date from 2025. Yonhap-chain reports describe the charged victims as five teachers. The same day the education office briefed on legal-aid rules (up to 6.6 million won per instance when a teacher is sued, 3.3 million won per case when a teacher files a complaint; office lawyers cannot act as a teacher's private counsel), said it had linked the teachers to the national Digital Sexual Crime Victim Support Center, announced an integrated support system through a hotline, and its section head said the office was sorry that early support had not been felt. The KTU Jeju branch (28 September) and the Jeju Teachers' Union (14 and 29 September) demand a victim-support system, per-teacher legal fees paid in advance and a dedicated support team.

High Unidentified video tool

Northern Territory: a former NT Police assistant commissioner says an AI-generated sexually explicit video made from her official police photograph was circulated among serving officers; she learned of it in December 2025 and issued a statement after criminal proceedings against former colleagues concluded (ABC News, 24 September 2026)

Janelle Tonkin, a former assistant commissioner of the Northern Territory Police Force and now president of the Australasian Council of Women and Policing, said in a statement issued on 23 September 2026, after criminal proceedings on the matter were finalised, that in December 2025 she became aware that an AI-generated, sexually explicit video had been created using her official NT Police photograph; ABC News reports that the video was allegedly shared among serving members of the force and that she had taken former colleagues to court over it. She called the experience 'extremely distressing, personally and professionally' and said having her professional portrait 'turned into pornography and circulated among colleagues is something no person should have to experience'. The outcome of the court proceedings is not reported. An NT Police spokesperson said the force does not comment on internal investigations and was legally constrained from commenting on matters before the court, but that the conduct she was subjected to 'was, and always will be, totally unacceptable'; the NT Police Association condemned the conduct. Ms Tonkin said the video sat within a broader set of experiences in the force that she intends to describe later.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.