“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

The Director Knew — And She Let It Happen Anyway


⟡ “The Fish Rots from the Top — And This One Signs Off on Retaliation” ⟡
A leadership-level regulatory complaint against Sarah Newman, filed after safeguarding was used to punish lawful complaint, harm disabled children, and sabotage parental rights.

Filed: 8 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/REGULATION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-08_SWANK_Complaint_SWE_SarahNewman_LeadershipBreach.pdf
Formal complaint to Social Work England against Sarah Newman, Executive Director of Children’s Services, for systemic failure in oversight, leadership malpractice, and disability retaliation under the guise of child protection.

I. What Happened

This complaint — submitted by Polly Chromatic — holds Sarah Newman accountable not just for isolated errors, but for institutionalised harm. It outlines how her office:

  • Failed to enforce disability protections despite statutory warning

  • Permitted and escalated PLO proceedings based on disproven allegations

  • Ignored medical and environmental risk factors, including sewer gas exposure and asthma crises

  • Allowed staff to disregard written-only communication adjustments supported by clinical evidence

  • Oversaw an internal culture where retaliation for complaint is not the exception — but the workflow

The submission includes annexes such as a pre-action letter, N1 claim, psychiatric reports, and safeguarding chronology — making this not a grievance, but a structured evidentiary indictment.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural harassment under PLO was authorised or ignored at executive level

  • Disability rights were overridden without lawful justification

  • Children’s educational access and emotional stability were harmed by institutional aggression

  • Regulatory and judicial safeguards were systematically bypassed

  • Sarah Newman failed to intervene, correct, or acknowledge leadership liability

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This is the moment where accountability moves up the chain. The complaint makes clear: retaliation for lawful complaint is a leadership failure. It does not matter if Sarah Newman did not type the emails. She enabled the structure that punished the parent for speaking up.

SWANK filed this document to:

  • Escalate institutional malpractice beyond individual officers

  • Activate regulatory oversight where internal mechanisms have collapsed

  • Establish a formal precedent for holding executive directors to account for downstream abuse

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20 (adjustments), 27 (victimisation), 149 (public duty)

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6, 8, and 14 (due process, family life, discrimination)

  • Children Act 1989 – Section 22 and Working Together 2018 noncompliance

  • Care Act 2014 – Section 42 (neglect of known risks and medical conditions)

  • Social Work England Standards – Failure in leadership, public trust, and ethical governance

  • UNCRC – Article 12 (child’s voice), Article 23 (disabled family support), Article 3 (best interests)

V. SWANK’s Position

Leadership does not excuse itself from responsibility by remaining silent. When a disabled family is harassed, misrepresented, and escalated into child protection frameworks for asserting legal rights, and the director says nothing — she is not neutral. She is complicit.

SWANK London Ltd. calls for:

  • Social Work England to initiate formal fitness-to-practise review of Sarah Newman

  • An external audit of Westminster’s safeguarding decisions between 2023–2025

  • Removal of Sarah Newman from any role involving child protection, oversight, or regulatory decision-making

⟡ 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.

Documented Obsessions