Primary school teacher, 48, who turned up to class drunk and greeted a colleague by saying ‘Yo Biatch’ is struck off
- Teacher has been struck off after panel found he turned up to school drunk
- James Langley, 48, greeted a colleague at Bradford school by saying ‘Yo Biatch’
- He admitted he had drunk ‘significant amount’ of alcohol in November 2019
A teacher has been struck off after a panel found him guilty of turning up to a school in Bradford while drunk and greeting a colleague by saying ‘Yo Biatch’.
James Langley, 48, admitted he had drunk a ‘significant amount’ of alcohol before meeting two colleagues at St Oswald’s CofE Primary Academy in November 2019.
The teacher of over 20 years lasted less than a month as a Year 4 teacher at the West Yorkshire school after resigning on December 2, 2019.
Langley was accused of being under the influence of alcohol and consuming alcohol on school premises on ‘one or more occasions’ between November 4 and December 2.
The Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) report also revealed the disgraced teacher shouted ‘Yo, Biatch’ at another staff member.
James Langley, 48, admitted he had drunk a ‘significant amount’ of alcohol before meeting two colleagues at St Oswald’s CofE Primary Academy in Bradford in November 2019
On November 25, Langley appeared ‘out of it’ in a way that staff at the school did not feel comfortable in his presence or leaving him alone with students, the report went on to say.
Langley admitted to all five allegations put against him according to the report.
The panel concluded that his actions were ‘wholly inappropriate and a significant breach of the Teachers Standards’.
It added that his conduct ‘may bring the profession into disrepute’ and banned him from teaching indefinitely.
The panel said: ‘The panel considered that it was wholly inappropriate and a significant breach of the Teachers Standards for Mr Langley to be under the influence of alcohol whilst on school premises and carrying out his teaching duties.
‘As a result, the panel concluded that public confidence in the profession would be weakened.
‘Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Langley was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.
‘The panel therefore found that Mr Langley’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
‘The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate.’
Source: Read Full Article