12 - DSL Said the Word ‘Retard’ to a Student — And Faced No Consequence

The Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) at Bury College repeated a harmful slur to a vulnerable student, admitted under cross-examination that she knew it could cause harm, and yet faced no investigation, no disciplinary process, and no formal review of her conduct.

Sarah Walton, the College’s safeguarding lead, was giving evidence in a tribunal concerning the dismissal of a teacher who was removed from his post for allegedly using the same word in a classroom. But in a surprising turn during the hearing, Walton confirmed that she had repeated the word “retard” to the same student, Student A, during a phone call.

Asked directly whether she believed her use of the word could have caused harm, Walton said yes.

Her explanation? She needed to repeat the word so that the student would “know exactly what word” she was referring to. But her justification did little to satisfy observers of the tribunal, especially given her senior safeguarding position.

DSLs must act as models of safe, professional conduct and take reasonable steps to prevent harm, including emotional harm. For someone in that role to knowingly repeat a derogatory term to a vulnerable student is, at best, a serious lapse in judgement. At worst, it's a clear breach of her professional duty.

Despite this, the College took no action against Walton. Her conduct was never recorded as a safeguarding concern..

Meanwhile, the dismissed teacher faced a formal investigation, disciplinary hearing, appeal, and ultimately dismissal, even though the evidence for his alleged wrongdoing was contested and inconsistent.

“This is the clearest double standard we’ve seen in the entire case,” the Claimant’s representative says. “You cannot justify dismissal on safeguarding grounds while allowing the safeguarding lead to do the exact same thing, knowingly, without consequence.”

The issue is compounded by the College’s broader position during the tribunal. In official documents and oral evidence, the College repeatedly described the word as offensive, derogatory, and unacceptable. But apparently, that standard applied only to the Claimant, not the DSL.

Critics now argue that Walton’s conduct should have triggered at least an internal review. Some believe it reflects a wider cultural problem, one where safeguarding becomes a tool for enforcement, not protection.

With the judgment still pending, the College’s failure to act on its own DSL’s actions may become a defining issue, not only in this case, but in the way the College’s safeguarding procedures are viewed going forward.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Headlines: What the Tribunal Really Showed About Bury College’s Case

Recent local coverage of the unfair dismissal tribunal involving a Bury College lecturer painted a simplified picture: a teacher used the “R-word” in class, the College acted, and a tribunal found the dismissal unfair only because of procedural flaws. But the deeper reality is more complex and far more troubling for the College’s credibility. [original article here:  Bury Times ]   Shifting Student Accounts The central complaint was not consistent. The initial allegation from Student B was that the maths lecturer had called the entire class “retards.” Later, she changed her account to say he had called just her the word. Still later, the complaint shifted again; now alleging he had called a different student, and then two students. Such shifting accounts should have raised immediate questions about reliability. Instead, the College treated the complaint as fact. Credibility of the Complaint Serious questions also arise about the credibility of the original complaint....
Read more

38 - Bury College Principal Endorses DSL’s Use of the Word “Retard”

Bury College Principal, Charlie Deane, has openly supported the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), Sarah Walton, after she repeated the word “retard” directly to a student with a learning disability. This position is remarkable given the College’s own characterisation of the word. In formal proceedings, the College has described “retard” as “offensive,” “derogatory,” “inappropriate,” “bullying,” “harassing,” “alienating,” “hateful,” “unacceptable,” “not used in society,” “a hate crime,” “a disgusting word,” and “linked to a protected characteristic.” The College also acknowledged that its use would cause damage to a student. Despite this, when Walton repeated the word to a vulnerable learner, she faced no sanction, no criticism, and was instead fully supported by Deane. By contrast, another member of staff who repeated the word in a classroom context was vilified and dismissed. Deane’s backing of Walton exposes a troubling double standard. If the word is so damaging tha...
Read more

41 - Safeguarding, Accountability, and Leadership at Bury College: Serious Questions Raised by Tribunal Evidence

In the Further Education sector, safeguarding is not simply a policy requirement, it is a core duty. Colleges are entrusted with the welfare of young people, and those in leadership positions carry a heightened responsibility to model and enforce those standards. Recent tribunal evidence involving Bury College raises significant questions about how safeguarding responsibilities are interpreted and applied at a senior level within the institution.   A Case That Goes Beyond One Incident At the centre of the case is a striking inconsistency. A lecturer was dismissed for using a derogatory term toward a student. However, tribunal evidence confirmed that a senior safeguarding leader,  Sarah Walton , Assistant Principal for Personal Development and the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) at the time, also used the same term toward the same student. Critically, it was acknowledged that: she had assessed that using the word could cause harm , yet chose ...
Read more