“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

This Is Not a Family Case File. It’s an Evidentiary Strike.


⟡ They Said Safeguarding. We Filed £4.25 Million in Damages. ⟡

Filed: 1 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/LSCP/2025-EVIDENCE-BUNDLE
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-01_SWANK_LSCP_EvidenceBundle_RBKC_WCC_SafeguardingAbuse_DisabilityRetaliation_CivilClaimSupport.pdf

I. This Is Not a Family Case File. It’s an Evidentiary Strike.

This bundle — submitted to the Local Safeguarding Children Partnerships (LSCP) for RBKC and Westminster City Council — is not an attempt at dialogue. It is a judicially structured evidence bomb, comprising:

  • Disability discrimination

  • Procedural harassment

  • Multi-agency retaliation

  • Institutional breach of statutory safeguarding duties

The file does not plead.
It does not explain.
It names, timestamps, and accuses — with formatting precise enough to stand in court without cross-examination.

II. Safeguarding Was the Pretext. Retaliation Was the Goal.

Contained within this bundle:

  • Lawful disability adjustments ignored across multiple departments

  • Social services activating “concerns” immediately following legal complaints

  • Gaslighting of medical harm

  • Surveillance attempts masked as “supportive intervention”

  • No lawful basis for escalation — only reputational panic

This wasn’t protection.
It was performance — and SWANK kept the playbill.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because concern forms are now used as bludgeons.
Because what began as policy became theatre.
Because the true child at risk was watching the state abuse her mother — and someone had to write that down.

Let the record show:

  • The safeguarding escalation was retaliatory

  • The evidence was precompiled

  • The agencies were aware of disability law and breached it anyway

  • And SWANK — bound that breach into PDF with a legal valuation attached

This isn’t a parent’s rebuttal.
It’s a civil liability archive with receipts and statutory teeth.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not consider safeguarding neutral when its function is punitive.
We do not accept multi-agency silence as good faith.
We do not allow institutional “concern” to override the documented needs of a disabled adult and her children.

Let the record show:

They filed referrals.
We filed litigation.
They referenced “support.”
We referenced the Equality Act, the Human Rights Act, and four child witnesses.
And SWANK — filed £4.25 million in evidentiary precision.

This isn’t care.
It’s bureaucratic coercion — and we filed the counterstrike in Helvetica and footnote.




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.

Documented Obsessions