⟡ “Thank You for Your Submission. Please Do Not Expect Accountability.” ⟡
Social Work England Confirmed Receipt of the Complaint — and the Limits of Its Imagination.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/AUTO-RESPONSE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_AutoReply_SocialWorkEngland_DoNotReplyAcknowledgement.pdf
Auto-response issued by Social Work England following the submission of a misconduct complaint naming three Westminster officers for retaliation, safeguarding abuse, and disability discrimination.
I. What Happened
At 02:30 AM on 24 June 2025, Social Work England issued a standard auto-reply to Polly Chromatic’s formal complaint regarding Westminster Children’s Services. The submission involved grave allegations: the unlawful removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children, denial of access rights to their disabled parent, and retaliatory actions following legal filings. Instead of a case reference, the regulator returned a boilerplate notice advising: “do not reply.”
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The regulator received a complaint detailing misconduct by named professionals
The reply contains no case number, no timeframe, and no commitment to investigate
Complainants are discouraged from sending follow-ups — in favour of silence
The message redirects safeguarding concerns away from the regulator
The institutional tone is one of automated deflection, not professional engagement
This wasn’t acknowledgement. It was programmatic apathy, issued at 02:30 AM.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when the regulator replies “do not reply,” that is the reply.
Because silence isn't neutral — it's procedural strategy dressed in server logic.
Because we didn’t submit this to trigger workflow. We submitted it to trigger jurisdiction.
Because the complaint was real. The consequences are real. The auto-reply was not.
Because you cannot claim professional oversight if your systems are programmed for avoidance.
IV. Violations
Social Work England Transparency Duties – Failure to acknowledge misconduct complaint in substance
Equality Act 2010 – Structural exclusion of disabled complainants from accessible updates
UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of accessible and responsive justice mechanism
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Right to a fair process and participation violated by system design
Regulatory Best Practices (Professional Standards Authority) – Absence of responsiveness in public complaint systems
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t an administrative delay. It was institutional disinterest rendered in auto-text.
This wasn’t just a poor reply. It was an indictment of how regulators shield misconduct through silence.
This wasn’t a confirmation. It was an automated shrug in the face of state violence.
SWANK hereby logs this auto-response as evidence of a regulator unprepared to protect, unready to respond, and unwilling to name misconduct when misconduct holds a credential.
This post is not a receipt. It’s a rebuke.
⟡ 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.