Share this post:
The University of Salford has refused to confirm or deny whether it handled an allegation of sexual misconduct, after a series of targeted legal questions between July and September 2025, according to a litigant who brought a claim against the institution.
The claimant, acting in person in Wigan County Court (claim no L00WN554), served a series of Part 18 requests on the university, asking whether non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) had been used, whether a student had reported a sexual offense, and whether internal records were withheld.
The university, represented by Hill Dickinson LLP, responded with blanket objections, citing proportionality, data-protection obligations, and victim anonymity concerns.
The letters, available publicly here, show that the claimant offered practical safeguards—including anonymised answers, redaction, or sealed court inspection—but these were reportedly declined.
Note to readers
Vox Political is evolving!
I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.
From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.
Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com
The claimant maintains that simple confirm/deny answers would not compromise anonymity and are essential for assessing whether safeguarding procedures were followed.
The dispute has arisen amid regulatory changes. Since September 1, 2024, the Office for Students (OfS) has prohibited NDAs in cases relating to harassment or sexual misconduct. Guidance published by the OfS emphasizes transparency and student protection (OfS guidance and policy note).
The claim was initially struck out on what the claimant describes as procedural gamesmanship that benefited Salford University and Greater Manchester Police, though an appeal is pending.
The case highlights tensions between institutional confidentiality, legal procedure under Practice Directions 18 and 31, and the public interest in transparent safeguarding practices.
Salford University’s published policies state that it will not use NDAs in complaints relating to harassment or sexual misconduct and that it has signed the voluntary “Can’t Buy My Silence” pledge (policy PDF).
Observers say the case underscores the challenges universities face in balancing confidentiality, regulatory obligations, and transparency, particularly when safeguarding allegations intersect with legal and procedural disputes.
You may be wondering what the above – a story This Writer was asked to run by a third party – has to do with UK politics. The answer is… quite a lot, in fact:
The Salford correspondence reads less like an isolated dispute and more like a case study in how public institutions evade scrutiny while claiming transparency. The letters exchanged between the claimant and the university’s solicitors reveal a familiar pattern: blanket objections, data-protection pretexts, and procedural manoeuvres deployed not to protect victims, but to shield the institution from embarrassment.
That pattern exposes a deeper problem across the higher-education sector — a culture of procedural secrecy born of years of deregulation and managerial self-protection. Universities that operate as corporate entities, selling reputation as much as education, have learned that the safest way to contain a scandal is to delay, deflect and deny.
Institutional accountability
Salford University’s refusal to confirm or deny simple factual questions — even when offered the option of redacted or sealed-court responses — epitomises a system where accountability is optional. Instead of engaging with the substance of safeguarding concerns, the correspondence shows lawyers reciting boilerplate about proportionality and GDPR, avoiding the kind of plain admissions that might enable oversight. For any university tasked with protecting students, this is not transparency; it is a bureaucratic barricade.
Regulatory weakness
The Office for Students (OfS), created under Conservative reforms to act as higher-education watchdog, appears nowhere in these exchanges — despite the fact that since September 2024, its own policy has banned non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in harassment or sexual-misconduct cases. The regulator’s silence on a dispute that directly tests that policy underlines how little practical power it wields. Universities know that OfS “guidance” can be ignored without immediate consequence — a weakness designed into the regulatory system itself.
Public-policy hypocrisy
Successive governments have praised “zero-tolerance” policies on harassment while allowing institutions to bury controversy under claims of confidentiality. Salford University proudly advertises its commitment to the Can’t Buy My Silence pledge, yet the documents show its lawyers refusing even to confirm whether NDAs existed. That contradiction goes to the heart of a wider public-policy failure: rules without enforcement, promises without transparency, and a rhetoric of safeguarding that collapses under legal pressure.
Legacy of deregulation
This episode also illustrates the enduring legacy of market-driven higher-education reform. Decades of Conservative and coalition policy reframed universities as competitive businesses — each guarding its brand from reputational harm. Under such a regime, disclosure becomes a liability, and secrecy a form of asset protection. The result is an accountability vacuum in which students, whistleblowers and even the courts must fight to extract basic information from taxpayer-funded institutions.
In short: the Salford case does not only raise questions about one university’s conduct.
It exposes how a system built on “transparency” and “student protection” can, in practice, operate through silence, redaction and reputational control — a political creation as much as a procedural one.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/
Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/
Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share
Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm
Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
University silence on misconduct claims exposes watchdog weakness and secrecy culture
Share this post:
The University of Salford has refused to confirm or deny whether it handled an allegation of sexual misconduct, after a series of targeted legal questions between July and September 2025, according to a litigant who brought a claim against the institution.
The claimant, acting in person in Wigan County Court (claim no L00WN554), served a series of Part 18 requests on the university, asking whether non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) had been used, whether a student had reported a sexual offense, and whether internal records were withheld.
The university, represented by Hill Dickinson LLP, responded with blanket objections, citing proportionality, data-protection obligations, and victim anonymity concerns.
The letters, available publicly here, show that the claimant offered practical safeguards—including anonymised answers, redaction, or sealed court inspection—but these were reportedly declined.
The claimant maintains that simple confirm/deny answers would not compromise anonymity and are essential for assessing whether safeguarding procedures were followed.
The dispute has arisen amid regulatory changes. Since September 1, 2024, the Office for Students (OfS) has prohibited NDAs in cases relating to harassment or sexual misconduct. Guidance published by the OfS emphasizes transparency and student protection (OfS guidance and policy note).
The claim was initially struck out on what the claimant describes as procedural gamesmanship that benefited Salford University and Greater Manchester Police, though an appeal is pending.
The case highlights tensions between institutional confidentiality, legal procedure under Practice Directions 18 and 31, and the public interest in transparent safeguarding practices.
Salford University’s published policies state that it will not use NDAs in complaints relating to harassment or sexual misconduct and that it has signed the voluntary “Can’t Buy My Silence” pledge (policy PDF).
Observers say the case underscores the challenges universities face in balancing confidentiality, regulatory obligations, and transparency, particularly when safeguarding allegations intersect with legal and procedural disputes.
You may be wondering what the above – a story This Writer was asked to run by a third party – has to do with UK politics. The answer is… quite a lot, in fact:
The Salford correspondence reads less like an isolated dispute and more like a case study in how public institutions evade scrutiny while claiming transparency. The letters exchanged between the claimant and the university’s solicitors reveal a familiar pattern: blanket objections, data-protection pretexts, and procedural manoeuvres deployed not to protect victims, but to shield the institution from embarrassment.
That pattern exposes a deeper problem across the higher-education sector — a culture of procedural secrecy born of years of deregulation and managerial self-protection. Universities that operate as corporate entities, selling reputation as much as education, have learned that the safest way to contain a scandal is to delay, deflect and deny.
Institutional accountability
Salford University’s refusal to confirm or deny simple factual questions — even when offered the option of redacted or sealed-court responses — epitomises a system where accountability is optional. Instead of engaging with the substance of safeguarding concerns, the correspondence shows lawyers reciting boilerplate about proportionality and GDPR, avoiding the kind of plain admissions that might enable oversight. For any university tasked with protecting students, this is not transparency; it is a bureaucratic barricade.
Regulatory weakness
The Office for Students (OfS), created under Conservative reforms to act as higher-education watchdog, appears nowhere in these exchanges — despite the fact that since September 2024, its own policy has banned non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in harassment or sexual-misconduct cases. The regulator’s silence on a dispute that directly tests that policy underlines how little practical power it wields. Universities know that OfS “guidance” can be ignored without immediate consequence — a weakness designed into the regulatory system itself.
Public-policy hypocrisy
Successive governments have praised “zero-tolerance” policies on harassment while allowing institutions to bury controversy under claims of confidentiality. Salford University proudly advertises its commitment to the Can’t Buy My Silence pledge, yet the documents show its lawyers refusing even to confirm whether NDAs existed. That contradiction goes to the heart of a wider public-policy failure: rules without enforcement, promises without transparency, and a rhetoric of safeguarding that collapses under legal pressure.
Legacy of deregulation
This episode also illustrates the enduring legacy of market-driven higher-education reform. Decades of Conservative and coalition policy reframed universities as competitive businesses — each guarding its brand from reputational harm. Under such a regime, disclosure becomes a liability, and secrecy a form of asset protection. The result is an accountability vacuum in which students, whistleblowers and even the courts must fight to extract basic information from taxpayer-funded institutions.
In short: the Salford case does not only raise questions about one university’s conduct.
It exposes how a system built on “transparency” and “student protection” can, in practice, operate through silence, redaction and reputational control — a political creation as much as a procedural one.
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
More mistakes in the script? Correcting Cameron’s New Year speech
Like this:
We have an Education Secretary who wants to overwrite history with lies
Like this:
Michael Gove highlights his own lies; Tony Robinson is right
Like this:
Like this: