A Transatlantic Evidentiary Enterprise — SWANK London LLC (USA) x SWANK London Ltd (UK)
✧ Filed with Deliberate Punctuation ✧
“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 Kendall (PC-116): On the Bureaucracy of Harm


⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – EDWARD KENDALL (SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND) ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/KENDALL-FTPR-2025
Download PDF: 2025-05-21_Core_PC-116_SWE_EdwardKendallFormalComplaint.pdf
Summary: Formal Fitness to Practise complaint submitted to Social Work England against Edward Kendall, social worker at Westminster Children’s Services, for professional misconduct, factual distortion, emotional negligence, and disability discrimination. This entry inaugurates the Professional Misconduct Series within the SWANK Legal Archive — an aesthetic tribunal for ethical collapse.

I. What Happened

On 21 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) lodged a complaint with Social Work England’s Fitness to Practise Department, detailing the unethical and discriminatory conduct of Edward Kendall.

The complaint identified:

  1. Procedural Misrepresentation – Kendall contributed false and misleading information to safeguarding and case reports, distorting facts about mental health, engagement, and parenting to justify unlawful PLO escalation.

  2. Enabling Emotional Harm – Despite clear awareness of trauma inflicted by safeguarding interference, he failed to advocate or intervene, enabling psychological harm to the children.

  3. Disability Discrimination – He repeatedly breached written-only communication adjustments confirmed by medical professionals, reframing compliance as “non-engagement.”

Each point was substantiated with witness statements, court filings, and corroborating documentation from medical and legal authorities.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That Edward Kendall breached Social Work England’s Professional Standards through distortion, negligence, and discriminatory misconduct.
• That his professional behaviour contributed directly to emotional harm, legal escalation, and data misrepresentation.
• That fitness to practise cannot coexist with deliberate factual manipulation or disregard for lawful disability accommodations.
• That in social work, cruelty is often procedural.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To formally preserve the record of misconduct that bridges social care, law, and medical retaliation.
• To establish a chain of jurisdictional accountability extending from Westminster to national regulatory oversight.
• To elevate complaint-writing to a form of jurisprudential choreography — where every paragraph is both testimony and architecture.
• Because silence protects systems; publication protects truth.

IV. Legal & Ethical Framework

Professional Standards – SWE (2021)
1.4 – Act with honesty and integrity.
2.1 – Communicate appropriately and respectfully.
3.4 – Maintain professional boundaries.
5.2 – Challenge and report poor practice.

Statutes Invoked
• Equality Act 2010, ss.15, 19, 20, 27 – discrimination and failure to provide reasonable adjustments.
• Children Act 1989, s.44 – misuse of safeguarding powers.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Arts. 6, 8, 14 – fair process, family life, and non-discrimination.
• Data Protection Act 2018, s.171 – accuracy and lawful processing.

V. SWANK’s Position

“Professional misconduct wears a badge, writes a report, and calls it safeguarding.”

SWANK London Ltd. holds that Edward Kendall exemplifies a national pathology: the social worker as bureaucratic aggressor, transforming parental disability into administrative ammunition.
The complaint is therefore both legal document and curatorial artefact — evidence not just of harm, but of the institutional aesthetic that enables it.

This letter does not request justice.
It records jurisdictional failure beautifully.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because evidence deserves architecture.
And misconduct deserves permanence.

⚖️ 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.