⟡ “You Raised Concerns About Criminal Safeguarding Abuse. They Gave You a Link About Fee Changes.” ⟡
This Wasn’t an Acknowledgement. It Was a Bureaucratic Deflection — Filed With Velvet Disdain and Timestamped Absurdity.
Filed: 28 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/NORESPONSE-AUTOEVADE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-28_SWANK_AutoReply_SWE_NoResponseToFitnessComplaint.pdf
Auto-response received from Social Work England after submitting a formal misconduct and fitness to practise complaint against multiple social workers implicated in retaliatory safeguarding actions and jurisdictional misconduct.
I. What Happened
On 28 May 2025 at 19:34, Social Work England sent an automatic response to Polly Chromatic’s formal complaint submission, in which she documented:
Retaliatory safeguarding actions
Structural disability discrimination
Falsification of records
Collusion across borough authorities
The auto-reply:
Provided no reference number
Contained no acknowledgement of the submitted evidence
Redirected the complainant to fee consultation pages and general FAQs
Explicitly discouraged follow-up or additional messages
It concluded with: “Please do not reply to this email. It is automatically generated.”
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Social Work England’s frontline communication structure is engineered to deflect
No procedural integrity was shown in response to a fitness to practise referral
Safeguarding concerns were redirected to local authorities — the very entities accused
No effort was made to record, triage, or confirm the gravity of the allegations
The complainant, a disabled U.S. citizen parent, was dismissed with automated bureaucracy
This wasn’t triage. It was pre-scripted evasion wrapped in a hyperlink matrix.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the regulator cannot claim professionalism if its only reply to misconduct is "check our fee guide."
Because the auto-reply is not neutral — it is an architecture of plausible deniability.
Because no system can claim it protects the vulnerable while auto-responding to state violence.
Because we do not send allegations into the void — we file the void as evidence.
IV. Violations
Social Work England Standards 6.1, 6.4 – Failure to acknowledge or triage concerns
Regulator’s public interest duty – Failure to investigate credible safeguarding and ethical breaches
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 & 27 – Dismissive response to known disability-based complaint
UNCRPD Article 13 – No accessible or transparent complaint pathway
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Structural denial of access to procedural remedy
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t regulation. It was technocratic theatre performed by a server script.
This wasn’t an answer. It was a refusal camouflaged in helpful-sounding nothing.
This wasn’t missed. It was logged, dated, and preserved as the institution’s self-indictment.
SWANK hereby archives this message as a canonical example of non-engagement by regulatory automation.
The complaint was real.
The reply was digital.
And the archive does not forget.
⟡ 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 automation deserves exposure.
© 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.