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-127): On the Administrative Rebranding of Cruelty


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

Filed: June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/KENDALL-COMPLAINT-01
Download PDF: 2025-06_Core_PC-127_SWE_EdwardKendallFormalComplaint.pdf
Summary: A formal complaint lodged with Social Work England (SWE) concerning the retaliatory and discriminatory conduct of Edward Kendall, social worker for Westminster City Council. The complaint identifies his misuse of safeguarding mechanisms, neglect of disability accommodations, and emotional harm inflicted through unethical procedural escalation.

I. What Happened

Filed by Polly Chromatic, this complaint was submitted after a prolonged pattern of misconduct by Edward Kendall, including:
• retaliatory safeguarding action following lawful medical disclosures;
• disregard for statutory disability communications;
• emotional and procedural harm to both parent and children;
• distortion of welfare assessments to conceal systemic failure.

The misconduct occurred not as isolated error but as institutional reflex — the council’s predictable retaliation against complaint and illness alike.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That Edward Kendall breached the SWE Code of Ethics by escalating involvement during periods of medical incapacity.
• That disability discrimination and safeguarding misuse were concurrent and intentional.
• That this case exemplifies the bureaucratic psychosis of retaliation — weaponising paperwork under the guise of care.
• That the harm caused was both administrative and emotional, eroding the legal integrity of the safeguarding process.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To convert ethical breach into archival fact.
• To assert jurisdictional oversight over practitioners whose misconduct hides behind “concern.”
• To expose the professional mechanics of retaliation — how complaint triggers coercion, not reflection.
• Because every safeguarding act performed without integrity is a documented form of abuse.

IV. Regulatory & Legal Standards

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

Statutory Duties Breached
• Equality Act 2010, ss. 15, 19, 20 — discrimination and failure to accommodate disability.
• Children Act 1989, s.44 — misuse of safeguarding powers.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Arts 3, 6, 8, and 14 — degrading treatment, denial of process, family interference, and discrimination.

V. SWANK’s Position

“Safeguarding without ethics is simply surveillance with stationery.”

SWANK London Ltd. holds that Edward Kendall’s behaviour constitutes a clear breach of regulatory integrity, moral conduct, and lawful practice.
His disregard for disability accommodation and emotional impact elevates this from negligence to professional cruelty.
This complaint is not a petition for correction — it is a record of indictment, written with the precision bureaucracy fears most: grammar.

⟡ 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 cruelty deserves citation.
And misconduct deserves preservation.

⚖️ 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.