⟡ The Social Worker Who Retaliated Against My Medical Records ⟡
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/HODGSON-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_SWE_Complaint_RhiannonHodgson_DisabilityMisconduct_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
I. When Ethics Breach Procedure, We File to the Regulator
This complaint was submitted to Social Work England regarding the conduct of Rhiannon Hodgson, whose decisions directly violated:
Documented disability adjustments
Medical confidentiality
The ethical framework of lawful safeguarding
SWANK’s Written Communication Policy — ignored without hesitation
This was not casework.
It was reputational assassination under institutional badge.
II. What She Knew — and What She Did Anyway
At the time of her actions, Ms Hodgson:
Possessed full documentation of medical trauma, adjustment policies, and PTSD-related restrictions
Proceeded to call, escalate, and report without lawful cause
Initiated risk frameworks while ignoring the risk she posed
Positioned herself as “support” while functioning as state witness for retaliation
The files were clear.
She crossed them anyway.
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because safeguarding is not a blunt instrument for punishment.
Because the moment a social worker sees medical documentation and escalates instead of adapts, they are no longer acting in care — but in coercion.
Because what they call “professional concern,” we call disability violation in report format.
Let the record show:
The actions were not protective
The behaviour was discriminatory
The process was retaliatory
And SWANK — filed, formatted, and named it for the public record
This isn’t a performance review.
It’s a regulator-grade transcript of ethical failure.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not permit professionals to violate disability law and hide behind “multidisciplinary team” dynamics.
We do not treat safeguarding as a shield for misconduct.
We do not redact names when harm is formatted.
Let the record show:
The adjustment was ignored.
The reports were retaliatory.
The ethics were breached.
And SWANK — filed what the courts will soon recognise.
This is not safeguarding.
It’s malpractice under a statutory header — and we filed it first.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.