“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Chromatic v Westminster (Kendall) – On the Procedural Weaponisation of Silence


🪞SWANK London Ltd.

Evidentiary Catalogue of Procedural Misuse and Bureaucratic Harassment

FILED ENTRY

Filed Date: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-LOI-EK-0801
PDF Filename: 2025-08-01_LOI_EdwardKendall_SocialWorkNeglectAndDiscreditingEfforts.pdf
One-line Summary: Social worker Edward Kendall exhibited erratic communication patterns, procedural manipulation, and misuse of safeguarding authority to retaliate against a mother who lawfully asserted her rights.

LETTER OF INFORMATION – EDWARD KENDALL

On the Institutional Distortion of Safeguarding Authority to Discredit Lawful Assertion
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
In the Matter of: Social Work Obstruction, Disability Disregard, and Retaliatory Child Endangerment

I. What Happened

Edward Kendall, Senior Practitioner for Westminster’s North West Social Work Team, repeatedly misused safeguarding communication channels to undermine and obstruct a medically vulnerable mother lawfully attempting to assert her family’s rights. His role in responding to complaints about third-party aggression (including police and gym staff) mutated into a campaign of procedural minimisation and coercive neglect. His emails include casual disregard for serious abuse reports, failure to investigate medical endangerment claims, and collusion in portraying the mother as unstable despite voluminous documentation and urgent health-related disclosures.

Kendall received detailed concerns about retaliatory conduct by NHS and council actors and ignored or mishandled each in a pattern best described as weaponised indifference. His emails reflect a sustained commitment to redirection, procedural ambiguity, and abuse of safeguarding vocabulary for institutional convenience.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This LOI establishes the following key facts:

  • Kendall was repeatedly copied on urgent safeguarding emails and chose either silence or derailing replies.

  • He demonstrated selective follow-up and orchestrated a pattern of framing the mother’s lawful complaints as emotionally unstable, despite receiving direct medical documentation of her asthma, PTSD, and dysphonia.

  • He remained complicit in Westminster’s attempts to justify child removal not by evidence, but by cumulative character assassination — engineered through calculated bureaucratic delay, misrepresentation, and gaslighting.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Edward Kendall’s pattern of response must be recognised not merely as clerical negligence but as deliberate obstruction rooted in social work culture that punishes complainants. This is not a neutral oversight — it is a procedurally intentional deactivation of accountability processes. SWANK logs this LOI to establish the evidentiary context of Kendall’s involvement and to rebut any future claims that Westminster's actions were based on lawful, child-centered rationale.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Duty to safeguard and promote welfare

  • Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate disability-based communication needs

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Interference with family life through retaliatory safeguarding

  • Public Sector Equality Duty – Neglect of protected characteristic obligations

  • Professional Misconduct (Social Work England standards) – Breach of integrity, responsiveness, and accuracy

V. SWANK’s Position

Edward Kendall’s conduct reflects a wider institutional pattern whereby social workers become the PR department for procedural abuse. His correspondence contains all the hallmarks of bureaucratic gaslighting: erratic timelines, refusal to act on evidence, and a chilling willingness to interpret every lawful boundary set by a parent as hostility. His participation in framing a mother’s medical, parental, and legal diligence as “erratic” cannot be excused — it must be documented, exposed, and referred for professional scrutiny.

SWANK London Ltd
Filed solemnly under our procedural and aesthetic jurisdiction.
We respond where others deflect. We write everything down.
Let the archive remember what the inbox forgets.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.