Joshua Roper
Introduction
Joshua Roper was a class teacher and Head of PE at Sheringham Community Primary School in Norfolk, and a youth football coach. In August 2025, a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found that he had failed to maintain professional boundaries with four children he had coached — touching one child’s bottom, sending another photographs of himself topless, and sending sexually based messages to a third. The panel found his conduct was of a sexual nature and sexually motivated, amounting to unacceptable professional conduct. On 26 August 2025, the decision maker acting for the Secretary of State banned him from teaching for life, with no right to apply for restoration.
Background Information
Roper started at Sheringham Community Primary School on 3 January 2018. Alongside his school work he coached youth football, including as assistant manager and assistant coach of girls’ teams, and the misconduct found proved took place in that coaching role. In 2017, a safeguarding concern had been raised with the Football Association (FA) alleging that Roper had been texting a 15-year-old girl inappropriately; a LADO meeting in July 2017 recorded those concerns as unsubstantiated. He was told to re-apply for a criminal record check, redo safeguarding training and accept three months of monitoring, and the FA closed the matter in January 2018. In July 2022, a player he had coached raised concerns about his text messages to senior figures at her club; three more players then came forward. Norfolk CFADSO reported the concerns to the FA on 25 August 2022, and the matter was referred to the DBS and reached the TRA in January 2023.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Findings of fact from the TRA panel, August 2025. The panel applied the civil standard, the balance of probabilities. The conduct found proved took place outside school, while Roper held a position of trust as the children’s football coach. Roper admitted some allegations in part and denied others; he did not attend the hearing.
Child A told the panel that Roper, her coach, would ask her to arrive at training early to help him set up, and that when they collected equipment from a storage container he touched her bottom and sometimes the front of her body, brushing past her so it would look accidental. Roper denied touching her; the panel preferred Child A’s account and found the touching proved on more than one occasion. It also found proved that he called her “babe” — messages included “You gotta behave remember. Babe” — that he commented on her appearance and outfits, that he contacted her via social media, and that he put ‘x’ at the end of his messages to her. He admitted much of this but said it was “banter”, and the panel found his explanations implausible: the tone and emojis “added to a deeper intent and meaning which was more than just an innocent joke”. One allegation, that he arranged one-to-one sessions without FA approval, was not proven.
Child B said Roper added her on Snapchat — which he admitted — and that messages which began with football and pet cats progressed to him sending photographs of himself topless and in his underwear. He denied this but told the FA’s investigation, “Potentially, I might have on a couple of occasions”. The panel found Child B a credible, consistent and reliable witness and proved that allegation, along with touching her back on more than one occasion and commenting on her appearance. Child C said Roper asked for her Snapchat and sent her sexual messages; one she recalled was “guess you must’ve been wearing a lucky thong today”. He denied sending messages of that nature, but the panel found the allegation proven, while finding insufficient evidence for one specific alleged message.
The panel also found that, as to Child A and Child C, Roper had shown a lack of insight into the 2017 concerns, committing “the same type of misconduct that had been investigated in 2017”. It found the conduct “inherently sexual in nature” and the touching and images sexually motivated, noted that the offence of sexual communication with a child was relevant, and concluded that Roper was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The decision records no press coverage; this page rests on the published regulatory record. The panel recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect, and suggested an eight-year review period after which he could seek review of the ban. The decision maker, Sarah Buxcey, agreed on prohibition but rejected the review period: she found the panel had given insufficient weight to the repetitive nature of the misconduct — the same type investigated in 2017 — and that the seriousness of the sexual misconduct findings and the limited insight shown meant the risk of repetition was far greater. The panel also found that Roper’s conduct had “undermined public confidence in a fundamental way” and had had “a serious impact on the children involved”. The decision records no criminal charges; the 2017 safeguarding concerns were recorded as unsubstantiated.
Current Status
As of the decision dated 26 August 2025, Roper is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Because the decision maker declined the panel’s recommended eight-year review period, he is not entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach: the ban is permanent. He did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The order takes effect from the date it is served on him, and he has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition order ends Roper’s teaching career permanently — a profession he told the panel was his passion — and any body checking the TRA record would bar him from coaching children. The panel rejected his claim that the conduct was out of character, finding his behaviour “deliberate and repetitive” over a significant period, and found his self-reflection unconvincing because he repeated the same behaviour after his earlier 2017 reflections and training. Unlike most TRA prohibitions, which allow a fresh application after a review period, his carries no such possibility.