Ex-Teacher Alleges Farage Bullying at Dulwich College

In 1981, Chloë Deakin, a young English teacher at Dulwich College, took a stand against the nomination of Nigel Farage as a school prefect. Deakin recalls that Farage, who was turning 17 that year, was already a figure of controversy among younger students and staff members. Her intervention came after discussions with a class of 11- and 12-year-olds who identified Farage specifically as a bully.

Deakin was so concerned by these reports that she wrote to the college master to argue against Farage's appointment. She remembers the conversation vividly, noting that the topic of bullying arose during an English lesson or form period. Her actions were driven by a desire to protect younger pupils from potential harassment. This historical account paints a picture of Farage's early reputation at the school located in south-east London. The allegations suggest that his controversial public persona was established long before his political career.

The controversy centers on events at Dulwich College in south-east London during the autumn of 1981. Nigel Farage was approaching his 17th birthday and was under consideration for the role of prefect, a position of responsibility within the school. This nomination prompted Chloë Deakin to investigate his standing among the student body. She engaged her younger students in a conversation that revealed troubling insights into Farage's behavior.

Deakin described the moment the topic emerged in her classroom. She stated, "I remember it was either in a particular English lesson or a particular form period that his name came up." The discussion quickly turned to the subject of bullying. Deakin noted, "There was something about bullying, and he was being referred to, quite specifically, as a bully." These specific allegations from the students prompted Deakin to take immediate action. She felt a responsibility to address the concerns raised by the younger pupils.

Upon hearing these reports, Deakin decided to intervene directly with the school administration. She recalled her reaction to the students' claims: "And I thought: 'Who is this boy?'" This inquiry led her to write a letter to the master of the college. Her goal was to argue against the decision to appoint Farage as a prefect. She believed that a student accused of bullying by younger peers should not hold a position of authority. Her intervention highlights the tension between Farage's nomination and the reported reality of his interactions with other students.

Chloë Deakin did not merely observe the situation; she took concrete steps to prevent Nigel Farage from gaining authority over younger students. Her primary tool was a formal letter addressed to the Dulwich College master. In this correspondence, she outlined the concerns she had gathered from her class of 11- and 12-year-olds. The letter served as a formal objection to the prefect nomination process.

Deakin's actions were driven by the specific nature of the accusations. The students did not just describe general misbehavior; they identified Farage as a "bully." This label carried significant weight in a school environment. By writing to the master, Deakin attempted to leverage her position as a teacher to influence the decision. She hoped that the administration would take the students' safety and well-being into account over other considerations for the prefect role.

The timeline of these events places them firmly in 1981, a pivotal year for Farage as he prepared to leave the school environment. Deakin's recollection serves as a counter-narrative to any image of Farage as a model student. Her account suggests that his reputation for controversy was well-established among the staff. The intervention demonstrates the vigilance of the teaching staff regarding student welfare. It also highlights the early emergence of behaviors that would later define Farage's public life.

According to Chloë Deakin, Nigel Farage was already a "figure of some controversy" at Dulwich College in 1981. This description suggests that his notoriety was not a secret among the school community. The younger pupils and staff were apparently well aware of his behavior. Deakin's testimony indicates that this reputation was a "lifelong habit," implying that the traits observed in his youth persisted into his adult life.

The specific claim of bullying adds a darker dimension to his early reputation. While many teenagers may be involved in disputes, being "quite specifically" labeled a bully by younger students is a serious allegation. It suggests a pattern of targeting those perceived as weaker or vulnerable. Deakin's surprise at hearing his name—"Who is this boy?"—indicates that Farage's reputation might have been confined to certain circles of the school before her encounter with the claims.

These historical allegations provide context for Farage's later public persona. The transition from a controversial schoolboy to a controversial political figure appears, according to this account, to be a continuous line. Deakin's willingness to speak out underscores the lasting impact of his behavior on those who witnessed it. The memory of his conduct remained vivid for Deakin decades later. This suggests that the events of 1981 were significant enough to leave a lasting impression on the teaching staff.

The account provided by Chloë Deakin offers a detailed look into the behavior of Nigel Farage during his time at Dulwich College in 1981. Her decision to write to the college master was a direct response to allegations of bullying leveled against him by younger students. The specific nature of the claims and Deakin's subsequent actions paint a picture of a student who was already generating controversy.

Deakin's recollection serves as a historical record of Farage's early reputation. It highlights the concerns that existed among the school staff regarding his suitability for a position of authority. The allegations of bullying suggest a pattern of behavior that predates his entry into the public sphere. This perspective from a former teacher provides a unique insight into the formative years of a prominent political figure. The events of 1981 remain a point of contention, illustrating the long shadow cast by youthful actions.