Abu Tanvir
Introduction
Abu Tanvir is a former teacher at William Perkin Church of England High School in London, who was banned from teaching indefinitely in November 2025 after a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) professional conduct panel found he had failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with pupils. Sitting virtually on 10 November 2025, the panel found he made a crude comment referencing a sexual act in class, referred to a specific pupil’s breasts and weight during a lesson, and told pupils not to talk about what he said in class — conduct it found was dishonest. Tanvir denied the allegations, did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
Background Information
Tanvir joined the school on 31 August 2022, teaching psychology on the evidence of the lesson topics described by pupils. On 6 February 2023 the school opened an investigation after a pupil reported by email that he had used inappropriate language in a lesson. He was suspended the next day, other pupils were spoken to on 8 and 9 February, and he was interviewed on 27 February 2023. A disciplinary hearing followed on 19 April 2023, and he was referred to the TRA on 9 May 2023. The notice of proceedings issued on 12 June 2025.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Sexual remarks in class and telling pupils to keep quiet.
The notice alleged that Tanvir failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more pupils. Five allegations — including that he implied a pupil showed symptoms of ASD or ADHD, and remarks about colleagues — were withdrawn on the TRA’s application at the outset. Tanvir denied the remaining allegations, answering the case only through written responses to the TRA.
Three matters were found proved. The first was a comment referring to a woman being fingered by someone with dirty fingernails. Pupil R told the panel he had been “explaining how he had seen a TikTok where a woman expressed that she got a UTI/STI from someone fingering her with a dirty fingernail.” Eight other pupils gave near-identical hearsay accounts, several recalling that girls in the class felt extremely uncomfortable. Tanvir denied it, saying he could not “fathom speaking about this with friends or even family, let alone students”, but the panel, weighting the volume and consistency of the pupils’ accounts, concluded he made a comment to this effect — later calling it particularly inappropriate and gratuitous, going far beyond what teaching required.
Second, while explaining differences between men and women, Tanvir referred to a specific pupil, Pupil B, highlighting her breasts or weight, or both. Pupil B said he gestured to his chest and remarked that if he ate a lot of food he would develop breasts too, and that some classmates took it as a joke about her weight; it left her uncomfortable and humiliated. Tanvir denied making the comment, but the panel found it was focussed on Pupil B, caused embarrassment and a risk of ridicule, and constituted a boundary breach.
Third, when concerns appeared to have been raised with the school, Tanvir asked pupils to “fight for him” and told them not to share or talk about what he said in class — requests several pupils described independently. The panel found this inappropriate and capable of being viewed as an attempt to take advantage of his status as a teacher. Finding no rational basis for him to fear for his position at that stage, it concluded he must have known there were things he had said which could prompt further concerns, that instructing pupils to conceal them amounted to a deceit, and that this was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people and lacked integrity.
The panel did not find everything alleged. It accepted a comment about Gen-Z promiscuity was probably made but could not determine it inappropriate in context, and did not find proved that Tanvir told pupils to make Tinder accounts or research tea-bagging. Nor was his conduct sexually motivated: the lessons included sexual elements within the A-level specification, and although his judgement was extremely poor, the comments as found proved were not sexual in nature.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The panel found the proven allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, breaching Teachers’ Standards requiring teachers to treat pupils with dignity and observe proper boundaries. It noted the failings occurred in the classroom and directly affected pupils, against a backdrop where Tanvir had already received guidance about his teaching methodology and was an experienced practitioner in a position of trust. Mitigating factors included the absence of previous formal regulatory or disciplinary proceedings, the isolated and narrow scope of the incidents across his career, and some evidence of regret in his submissions. However, the panel found his insight extremely limited because he denied wrongdoing entirely, had taken no responsibility, and had shown no awareness of the triggers for his conduct or steps to change — leaving, in its view, a present risk of repetition. It recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and a two-year review period.
Current Status
On 17 November 2025 Marc Cavey, the decision maker acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, endorsed the recommendation. Tanvir is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the order to be set aside, “but not until 20 November 2027, two years from the date of this order”, and such an application is not an automatic right; a panel would consider whether the prohibition should be lifted. Without a successful application he remains prohibited indefinitely. The order takes effect from the date it is served, and he has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice. The outcome was published on 2 December 2025.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition ends Tanvir’s teaching career in England less than a year after the events that triggered it, and it was imposed in his absence: he contested the case only in writing, denying all allegations throughout. The decision maker placed considerable weight on the lack of demonstrated insight and remorse. The panel accepted he was of prior good character and was regarded as an experienced and knowledgeable teacher, but found no evidence he had taken steps to address his teaching practice. Any return to the profession depends on him evidencing remediation and insight from November 2027 onwards.