⟡ The Anatomy of an Inaccuracy ⟡
Filed: 30 October 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC–CFC/CONTACT–327I–FORMALNOTICE
Download PDF: 2025-10-30_Core_PC-327I_Westminster_FormalNotice_FactualInaccuracyAndDiscriminatoryLanguage.pdf
Summary: Westminster issued a contact plan containing false medical claims and discriminatory language — then attempted to pass it off as “concern.”
I. What Happened
A Westminster officer decided to author a novel, thinly disguised as a contact plan.
The draft included a work of speculative fiction: “The children are largely healthy, but the mother’s mental health impairs parenting.”
No medical source, no diagnostic authority — only the creative impulse of a department confusing subjectivity for safeguarding.
The applicant issued a Formal Notice: citing medical records, Equality Act duties, and the quaint notion that facts exist.
The Council, ever self-assured, filed its imagination under “evidence.”
II. What the Document Establishes
• That Westminster’s fiction department is alive and well — funded, salaried, and incapable of spell-checking “Eosinophilic.”
• That bureaucratic invention now masquerades as assessment.
• That data protection is regarded as a minor genre.
• That discrimination, when written in a Word document, is mistaken for professionalism.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the administrative imagination must be curbed before it earns royalties.
Because factual integrity is not optional in a civilised bureaucracy.
Because when “largely healthy” replaces clinically verified chronic illness, satire becomes survival.
IV. Applicable Standards & Violations
Equality Act 2010 s.20 & s.26 — Failure to Adjust and Harassment.
UK GDPR Art. 5(1)(d) — Duty of Accuracy.
Children Act 1989 s.22(3)(a) — Duty to promote welfare.
Human Rights Act 1998 Art. 8 & 14 — Family Life and Non-Discrimination.
UNCRC Art. 2 & 8 — Non-discrimination and preservation of identity.
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not “record-keeping.”
This is institutional fan fiction.
We do not accept Westminster’s literary ambitions disguised as safeguarding.
We reject its habit of diagnosing what it cannot define.
We document each embellishment until bureaucracy learns that the truth, too, requires formatting.
⟡ Archival Seal ⟡
Every error an exhibit.
Every adjective a confession.
Every bureaucrat a failed novelist.
Because evidence deserves elegance — and falsehood deserves footnotes.
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.