⟡ “I Filed a Police Report — So They Closed the Support Plan” ⟡
When the safeguarding system can't defend itself, it retaliates. This is the document that proves it.
Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/RETALIATION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Email_Westminster_CINClosure_RetaliationPostPoliceReport.pdf
Email to Kirsty Hornal referencing police report BCA-10622-25-0101-IR and documenting Westminster’s retaliatory closure of the Child in Need (CIN) plan — not based on support completed, but because complaint was filed.
I. What Happened
On 15 February 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal police report against Westminster Children’s Services for disability discrimination, safeguarding misuse, and psychological harm.
Within weeks — without request, consent, or cause — the CIN plan was closed. No milestone had been reached. No risks had resolved. No parent had disengaged. But one thing had happened: the family made a report.
On 15 April 2025, this email was sent to record it.
The email:
Cites the active police complaint
Names the sudden closure of support as procedural retaliation
Reasserts written-only disability accommodation
Questions the legitimacy of the closure
Treats the CIN framework not as care — but as a tool of conditional compliance
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Westminster withdrew support immediately after legal accountability was pursued
CIN was being used as a compliance filter, not a support mechanism
The closure of the case was not protective — it was punitive
Disability-adjusted communication was treated as refusal
Safeguarding frameworks were invoked only when the parent was silent — and withdrawn when they spoke
III. Why SWANK Filed It
This letter reveals a dangerous pattern: state agencies weaponising procedural withdrawal as institutional punishment. You are “in need” as long as you are quiet. Once you file a complaint? The need evaporates — or so they pretend.
SWANK archived this email to:
Preserve a precise timestamp on retaliatory conduct
Document how safeguarding support becomes conditional on silence
Expose how disability accommodations are reframed as opposition
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – Section 27 (victimisation), Section 20 (failure to adjust), Section 149 (public sector duty)
Children Act 1989 – Closure of support without regard to actual need or safety
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (family life), Article 6 (retaliation for legal process)
Social Work England Standards – Misuse of frameworks, concealment of institutional accountability
UK GDPR – Data omission and intentional mischaracterisation of parent engagement
V. SWANK’s Position
You don’t stop supporting a family because they reported you. Unless, of course, you were never supporting them in the first place — just surveilling. This document is proof that the safeguarding framework isn’t failing. It’s retaliating.
SWANK London Ltd. calls for:
Independent review of CIN closure timelines following complaint
Reopening of case support records with full external audit
Legal recognition that retaliatory withdrawal is procedural harm
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡ Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.
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.