Social Work England: Misconduct Complaint Received, Auto-Reply Issued, Action Withheld

---

⟡ “This Is a Serious Concern. Please Do Not Reply.” ⟡
We Reported Retaliatory Child Removal. The Regulator Responded With a Bot.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/AUTO-SHRUG-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_AutoReply_SocialWorkEngland_DoNotReply.pdf
Automated reply received from Social Work England following submission of a formal misconduct complaint against named Westminster social workers involved in the retaliatory removal of four U.S. citizen children.

---

I. What Happened

At 03:28 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic received an automated email from Social Work England acknowledging receipt of a misconduct complaint submitted hours earlier. The complaint named three professionals for documented retaliation, safeguarding misuse, and disability discrimination. The regulator's response did not assign a reference number, confirm intent to investigate, or acknowledge the substance of the submission. Instead, it advised: “Please do not reply.”

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• The complaint involved forced removal of children without threshold, documentation, or disability accommodation

• The response included no confirmation of review, triage, or safeguarding concern

• The email diverts complainants away from the regulator and toward police or councils

• The response was generated during business hours and constitutes a public body’s official position

• The tone and structure suggest a deliberate policy of procedural evasion, not professional regulation

This wasn’t oversight. It was an algorithmic distancing tactic disguised as efficiency.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because complaints about child removal deserve more than a link to a login page.
Because regulators cannot outsource their conscience to an inbox filter.
Because if you’re regulating a profession tasked with child protection, your reply cannot be: “Contact someone else.”
Because sending an auto-response to a documented case of rights abuse is not responsiveness — it’s refusal.
Because when public safety becomes a web form, the archive becomes mandatory.

---

IV. Violations

• Regulatory Accountability Charter – Failure to acknowledge or address complaint content

• Equality Act 2010 – Lack of accessible, responsive feedback for disabled complainants

• Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Breach of fair process expectations from public bodies

• UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of justice through inaccessible or dismissive complaint channels

• Professional Standards Authority Code – Absence of procedural transparency in handling misconduct referrals

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t an update. It was institutional side-stepping by auto-generated indifference.
This wasn’t administrative overload. It was bureaucratic design to avoid jurisdictional accountability.
This wasn’t an invitation to dialogue. It was a mechanised don’t-call-us, don’t-call-us.

SWANK hereby logs this not as a technical record, but as a jurisdictional indicator of regulatory inertia.
The complaint has been filed.
The response was filed too — for posterity, for litigation, and for every archive that knows exactly what silence means.

---

⟡ 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.

---