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 to use it regardless,
  • and faced no disciplinary investigation or sanction.

This raises an immediate and obvious question:

How can identical conduct result in dismissal for one member of staff, but no apparent action for another, particularly where the latter holds safeguarding responsibility?

 

Safeguarding Policy vs Practice

The College’s own safeguarding policy sets out clear expectations:

  • The DSL holds lead responsibility for safeguarding and referrals
  • Staff must challenge derogatory language and adopt a zero-tolerance approach
  • Safeguarding concerns must be referred promptly
  • Allegations that a staff member may have harmed a child must be considered and investigated

Against those standards, the tribunal evidence presents a troubling contrast.

Rather than challenging derogatory language, the DSL was directly involved in its use. Despite an acknowledged risk of harm, there appears to have been no safeguarding investigation into that conduct.

This is not simply a question of inconsistency, it is a question of whether safeguarding procedures were applied at all.

 

The LADO Decision and What Followed

The matter regarding the lecturer was referred to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), as required.

The LADO determined that the harm threshold was not met.

That should have provided an independent safeguarding benchmark.

However, tribunal evidence also records that the College’s position was that it determines whether the harm threshold is met, rather than deferring to the LADO’s assessment.

This introduces a critical issue:

If safeguarding thresholds are determined internally rather than guided by independent oversight, what role does the LADO process actually serve?

The concern here is not that the College took disciplinary action, employers are entitled to do so, but that the interpretation of safeguarding thresholds appears to diverge from external safeguarding authority.

 

Leadership and Accountability

The issue does not sit solely at operational level.

As Principal, Charlie Deane holds ultimate responsibility for institutional governance, including safeguarding culture and consistency.

When:

  • safeguarding standards appear to be applied unevenly,
  • senior leaders are not subject to the same scrutiny as staff,
  • and external safeguarding assessments are interpreted internally rather than followed,

this becomes a leadership and governance issue, not just a disciplinary one.

 

Ongoing Safeguarding Responsibility

Minutes from a Curriculum & Quality Committee meeting (January 2026) confirm that:

  • Sarah Walton remains Assistant Principal for Personal Development
  • and is responsible for managing day-to-day safeguarding referrals pending the arrival of a new Safeguarding Manager

This is particularly significant.

The individual at the centre of the tribunal evidence is not removed from safeguarding processes, she is continuing to oversee them.

 

Why This Matters for the FE Sector

This case is not just about one college.

It raises broader sector questions:

  • How consistently are safeguarding policies applied across staff groups?
  • What happens when safeguarding leaders are themselves involved in conduct that raises concern?
  • How should colleges respond when internal views differ from independent safeguarding assessments?

For sector bodies such as FE Week and Tes, these are not minor operational details, they go to the heart of safeguarding culture in Further Education.

 

Conclusion: A Question of Trust

Safeguarding depends on trust:

  • trust that policies will be followed,
  • trust that staff will be treated consistently,
  • and trust that those responsible for safeguarding are themselves accountable.

The evidence emerging from this case raises legitimate questions about whether those principles have been upheld.

At a minimum, the situation appears to demonstrate:

  • a disconnect between policy and practice,
  • a lack of consistent application of standards,
  • and a need for greater transparency in safeguarding decision-making.

Where safeguarding is concerned, perception matters, but evidence matters more.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that further scrutiny of Bury College is not only justified, but necessary, particularly in relation to safeguarding governance and leadership accountability.

 

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

08 - Safeguarding Lead at Bury College Repeated Harmful Language to Student, Tribunal Hears

The Designated Safeguarding Lead at Bury College admitted to repeating a derogatory slur to a vulnerable student, despite knowing it could cause harm, according to evidence heard at a recent employment tribunal. Sarah Walton, the College's safeguarding lead, made the admission under cross-examination while giving evidence in a three-day hearing concerning the dismissal of a former staff member. The former employee had been dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly using the word "retard" in a classroom context. Ms Walton told the tribunal that she repeated the slur during a phone call with Student A, a student with a recognised learning disability, so the student would "know exactly what word" she was referring to. When pressed, she accepted that her use of the word could cause the same harm as when the dismissed teacher had used it. However, unlike the Claimant, no disciplinary action was taken against Ms Walton. Her conduct was not investigated, cri...
Read more