“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
Showing posts with label Discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Discrimination. Show all posts

⟡ Chromatic v SWE: The Panel Was Warned ⟡


⟡ “The Pattern Was Clear. The Retaliation Was Organised.” ⟡
A formal escalation exposing coordinated misconduct by multiple registered social workers

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/FITNESS-PANEL-ESCALATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_Complaint_SWEPanel_RetaliationPattern.pdf
Formal escalation letter requesting full panel review of repeated misconduct and fitness to practise breaches

I. What Happened

On 21 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal escalation letter to Social Work England’s Fitness to Practise Panel. The submission identified a coordinated pattern of retaliatory safeguarding misuse and disability discrimination by four registered social workers:

  • Kirsty Hornal

  • Glen Peache

  • Edward Kendall

  • Rhiannon Hodgson

The complaint documents a post-litigation pattern of safeguarding escalation without evidence, the deliberate refusal of disability accommodations, and unethical distortion of medical records. The actions described had a direct and harmful impact on Polly’s disabled family.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: Triggering CIN/PLO processes as retaliation for legal action; using statutory frameworks for reprisal

  • Human impact: Emotional distress, disrupted care, destabilised home education, and the erosion of trust

  • Power dynamics: Professionals operating in tandem to reinforce fabricated narratives

  • Institutional failure: No internal checks, no safeguarding of the safeguarding process

  • Unacceptable conduct: Allowing collusion between practitioners to punish a parent for protected activity

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because retaliation isn’t just personal — it’s structural.
Because a single abusive worker can be dismissed as an outlier — but four cannot.
Because it’s clear that disability adjustments were viewed not as access tools, but as strategic weaknesses to exploit.
Because what Polly Chromatic experienced wasn’t incidental error. It was premeditated sabotage in social work form.

This entry is an escalation — and a signal: institutional patterns must now answer to public documentation.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Sections 17 & 47 – misuse of risk thresholds and procedural timelines

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 26, and 27 – failure to accommodate; harassment; victimisation

  • Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.3, 3.1, 5.1 – honesty, person-centred practice, avoiding harm

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – unlawful interference with family life and access needs

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not one bad apple.
This was a barrel — curated, coordinated, and spoiling the profession from within.

SWANK does not accept that the Fitness to Practise process is a waiting room for abusers in uniform.
We do not accept retaliatory safeguarding disguised as risk protocol.
We do not accept silence from a regulator when the pattern is this visible.

This archive is not just a record. It is precedent — a public memory for every child punished for their parent’s resistance.

⟡ 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.

No comments:

They Called It Procedure. We Called It Discrimination.


⟡ They Ignored the Adjustment. We Filed the Complaint. ⟡
“I asked to communicate in writing. They escalated safeguarding instead.”

Filed: 17 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EHRC-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-17_SWANK_EHRCComplaint_Westminster_DisabilityAdjustmentRetaliation.pdf
Formal complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission citing Westminster’s refusal to implement a disability adjustment, escalation of safeguarding in retaliation, and breach of public sector equality duties.

I. What Happened

Despite receiving a written-only communication request on 22 May 2025 — supported by medical evidence, legal policy, and multiple hospitalisations — Westminster Children’s Services responded with:

  • No written reply

  • A supervision order threat

  • Unannounced visits

  • Surveillance-style behaviour

  • Complete disregard for the audit timeline

Rather than adjust, they retaliated.

Rather than reply, they acted.

And when they were reminded of the law, they doubled down.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Westminster violated the Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20, 27, and 149

  • That a written-only adjustment was refused despite clinical necessity and legal demand

  • That safeguarding measures were escalated directly after legal assertion of disability protections

  • That Westminster failed in its Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) while under active oversight

  • That SWANK’s public audit was ignored while procedural abuse intensified

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when a parent says:
“I cannot speak. Please write to me.”
And a council responds by sending someone to their door —
That’s not protection. That’s targeting.

Because this wasn’t a delay.
It was a documented refusal.

And because every ignored adjustment becomes
evidence of discrimination, once archived.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010

    • Section 20 – Reasonable adjustments not honoured

    • Section 27 – Victimisation following protected act

    • Section 149 – Failure of Public Sector Equality Duty

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 8 and 14

    • Discriminatory interference with privacy and dignity

  • Data Protection Act 2018

    • Failure to process records under accessibility requirement

  • Children Act 1989 / 2004

    • Procedural misuse under the guise of welfare concern

V. SWANK’s Position

They were asked to put it in writing.
They put someone at the door instead.

They called it safeguarding.
We call it retaliation.

This wasn’t miscommunication.
It was discriminatory by design.

And now it’s logged, filed, and escalated.

⟡ 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.

No comments:

Regulation 9 Exists for a Reason: Because Silence Has a Deadline, But Justice Does Not


⟡ “Too Late to Investigate? Or Too Damaging to Confront?” ⟡
Polly Chromatic Requests the Ombudsman Override RBKC’s Rejection of Historic Safeguarding Complaints

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-05
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Email_LGSCO_RequestOverride_RBKC_HistoricSafeguardingRefusal.pdf
Summary: Request for the LGSCO to override RBKC’s refusal to review historic safeguarding complaints under Regulation 9, citing medical barriers and repeated attempts to report misconduct.

I. What Happened

RBKC refused to investigate safeguarding complaints involving Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan, citing the passage of time. On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal request to the Ombudsman asking that they exercise their discretionary powers under Regulation 9 to consider these concerns in the public interest.

The request notes that prior complaints were never closed with consent, and that disability-related communication barriers made it impossible to meet RBKC’s procedural timeframes. The underlying issues involve discrimination, safeguarding breach, and retaliation.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC is shielding social worker misconduct behind administrative time limits
• Regulation 9 exists precisely to bypass such limits when public protection is at stake
• The complainant has repeatedly attempted to escalate these issues over time
• Communication disabilities were used as a procedural disqualifier
• Refusal to investigate becomes an institutional defence mechanism, not an accident
• LGSCO has a clear legal pathway to re-open these matters and examine them substantively

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the harm didn’t expire — so the complaint shouldn’t either.
Because Regulation 9 was written for exactly these moments: where injustice survives because of red tape.
Because Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan’s actions remain uninvestigated not because they were trivial — but because they were strategic.

SWANK records not just the complaint — but the refusal to bury it.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that time limits override institutional accountability.
We do not accept that barriers to verbal communication negate a person’s right to report harm.
We do not accept that safeguarding failures can be deleted by calendar year.

This wasn’t a new complaint. This was a refusal to forget.
And SWANK will archive every delay, every denial, and every system that mistook time for permission.

⟡ 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.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions