⟡ 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
Medical documentation issued → ignored.
Formal complaints lodged → safeguarding escalated.
Disability disclosed → labelled “non-engagement.”
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.