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 Westminster (PC-148): On the Ethics of Retaliation and the Pretence of Safeguarding


⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – SAMIRA ISSA ⟡

Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SOCIALWORKENGLAND/SAMIRA-ISSA-COMPLAINT
Download PDF: 2025-06-25_Core_PC-148_SWE_SamiraIssaFormalComplaint.pdf
Summary: A formal complaint lodged with Social Work England (SWE) against social worker Samira Issa for retaliatory safeguarding conduct, ethical breaches, and procedural malice — filed as part of SWANK London Ltd.’s continuing documentation of regulatory failure in Westminster Children’s Services.

I. What Happened

Social worker Samira Issa engaged in a series of retaliatory acts following the complainant’s lawful medical and procedural filings.
Despite written risk notices and confirmed disability documentation, Ms. Issa:

  • Ignored clinical evidence of eosinophilic asthma and dysphonia,

  • Escalated safeguarding investigations during confirmed illness,

  • Misrepresented family wellbeing to agencies already in possession of exculpatory evidence.

Her conduct formed part of Westminster’s ongoing pattern of procedural retaliation: each lawful disclosure or complaint was met not with resolution, but with escalation.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That Ms. Issa’s conduct constitutes professional misconduct under the SWE Code of Ethics, including breaches of honesty, integrity, and respect.
• That safeguarding was used not for protection but as retribution following medical complaints.
• That the resulting emotional and procedural harm was foreseeable, preventable, and documented.
• That this case illustrates a systemic culture of disbelief, in which disability and dissent are treated as risk factors.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To establish the regulatory chain of accountability between individual misconduct and institutional failure.
• To preserve this complaint as part of the SWANK evidentiary series tracking retaliation across multiple social workers.
• To expose SWE’s duty to investigate — a duty now recorded in public jurisdiction.
• Because ethical codes lose meaning when they are not enforced.

IV. Legal & Ethical Framework

Domestic Law
• Children Act 1989 — misuse of safeguarding powers contrary to welfare principle.
• Equality Act 2010 — discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability.
• Data Protection Act 2018 — processing without lawful basis or accuracy.

Professional Standards
• SWE Professional Standards (2021) — duties of integrity, accountability, and professional judgement breached.
• HCPC Legacy Standards — obligation to act in service user’s best interests and communicate accurately.

Human Rights Law
• ECHR Articles 3, 6, 8, 14 — degrading treatment, denial of fair process, interference with family life, and discrimination.
• UNCRPD Articles 5, 7, 13 — equal access to justice and protection from discrimination.

V. Contextual Sequence

  1. Medical documentation issued → ignored.

  2. Formal complaints lodged → safeguarding escalated.

  3. Disability disclosed → labelled “non-engagement.”

  4. Professional ethics invoked → retaliatory interference follows.

The pattern is not coincidental. It is institutional choreography.

VI. SWANK’s Position

“This is not social work.
This is administrative revenge in a cardigan.”

SWANK London Ltd. asserts that Ms. Issa’s conduct represents both personal failure and professional contagion — a microcosm of Westminster’s cultural rot.
Her name now exists not as practitioner, but as precedent: proof that ethical codes unobserved are worse than laws unenforced.

The record is filed. The archive is watching.

⟡ 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 retaliation deserves record.
And ethics deserve enforcement.

⚖️ 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.