⟡ SWANK Safeguarding Misuse Archive ⟡
“They Called It Inclusion. He Called My Son In Alone.”
Filed: 22 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/DRAYTON-PARK/RETALIATION-KAPOOR-PRITCHARD
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-22_SWANK_DraytonPark_FormalComplaint_AnnabelleKapoor_BenPritchard_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
I. This Wasn’t Inclusion. It Was Surveillance Through a Child.
This complaint was submitted to Drayton Park Primary School on 22 April 2025. It documents acts of educational retaliation carried out not in policy — but in tone, in omission, and in whom they chose to question without warning.
At the centre of it:
Annabelle Kapoor, Inclusion Lead
Ben Pritchard, staff member who questioned the child
What inclusion meant, in this context, was access to the child when the mother refused the system.
They couldn’t reach the parent.
So they used the child.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That school staff:
Questioned a disabled child without prior notice, justification, or safeguarding threshold
Ignored the family’s written-only communication adjustment
Triggered retaliation due to discomfort with the parent’s lawful complaints
That inclusion was not:
Supportive
Safe
Or procedurally lawful
That the safeguarding narrative was deployed as a buffer against accountability, not a basis for protection
This wasn’t a pastoral meeting.
It was institutional discomfort redirected at a child.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when schools assign “Inclusion” to staff who exclude adjustment rights, the name is a lie.
Because retaliation doesn't always arrive in legal letters — sometimes, it knocks at the classroom door and calls your son in alone.
Because the only protection left is to document it — and publish the pattern.
We filed this because:
Kapoor’s correspondence erased accountability through bureaucratic calm
Pritchard’s questioning breached ethics, duty, and the Equality Act
The escalation fit a pattern of educational complicity in institutional retaliation
Let the record show:
The parent was not absent
The child was not at risk
The staff were not neutral
And the complaint — is now archived, named, and public
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not permit schools to mask retaliation as inclusion.
We do not accept that “checking in” with a child is neutral when it bypasses legal adjustment.
We do not allow “Inclusion Leads” to coordinate silence with external retaliation.
Let the record show:
The names were recorded.
The questions were improper.
The harm was foreseeable.
And SWANK — does not redact retaliation disguised as care.
This wasn’t safeguarding.
It was disciplinary interest masquerading as concern.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
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.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.
© 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.