“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 Whistleblower Was Disabled — So They Called Her a Risk


⟡ “I Reported the Harm. They Retaliated. Now the Ombudsman Has the Receipts.” ⟡
A formal complaint to the UK Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman documenting how safeguarding frameworks were weaponised to punish a disabled, racialised parent for speaking up.

Filed: 5 March 2025

Reference: SWANK/WCC/PHSO-01

📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-05_SWANK_Letter_Ombudsman_Westminster_SafeguardingRetaliationDisabilityBreach.pdf
Chronological, evidence-based complaint filed to the PHSO naming Westminster Children’s Services for disability discrimination, safeguarding retaliation, racial bias, and professional misconduct — with full archival dossier.

I. What Happened

This 16-page complaint, submitted by Polly Chromatic, is addressed to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and backed by a meticulously documented archive. It charts a devastating timeline:

  • Feb 2024 – Request for medical protection and reasonable adjustments

  • March–August 2024 – Clinical harm, school failures, police involvement, ignored safeguarding warnings

  • Nov 2024–Jan 2025 – Social worker defamation, refusal to record asthma diagnosis, and medical trauma

  • Feb–April 2025 – After a formal complaint and a police report were submitted, Westminster retaliated with PLO

The letter outlines how racialised surveillance, disability neglect, and child-endangering escalation were used in response to complaint — not concern.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Westminster used safeguarding not as protection, but as institutional punishment

  • Reasonable adjustments were ignored — and then reframed as evidence of mental instability

  • Officers under active misconduct behaved with total impunity, citing procedure to avoid scrutiny

  • Medical negligence was never investigated — instead, the whistleblower was

  • Social work conduct contributed to reputational damage, educational harm, and emotional trauma

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This is not a local complaint. It is a national-level submission that asserts systemic failure. SWANK archived this record because it represents the final threshold: once every internal process has failed, the only option left is documentation and exposure.

SWANK filed this complaint to:

  • Demand public accountability from an independent, parliamentary body

  • Prove that procedural retaliation is not just real — it's structured, repeatable, and state-endorsed

  • Provide a legal and factual foundation for institutional redress, both for this case and others like it

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Sections 15, 19, 20, 27 (disability discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimisation, failure to adjust)

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (fair trial), Article 8 (private and family life), Article 14 (non-discrimination)

  • Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding powers, emotional harm, failure to act in best interest

  • UNCRC – Article 12 (child’s voice), Article 23 (disability support), Article 3 (best interest principle)

  • Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Act 1993 – Maladministration and injustice

  • Social Work England Standards – Breaches of ethical practice, truthfulness, and impartiality

V. SWANK’s Position

This letter is a warning to every institution watching: the era of quiet retaliation is over. When you use PLO to punish a medical accommodation, when you escalate safeguarding after a police report — you do not get to hide behind policy. You get named. And you get filed.

SWANK London Ltd. calls for:

  • Full Ombudsman investigation into Westminster’s misuse of safeguarding as disciplinary retaliation

  • Public recognition of procedural abuse under the Children Act and Equality Act

  • Immediate withdrawal of all PLO, CPP, and CIN actions against the family until review concludes

⟡ 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