Edward Kendall: Misrepresentation Filed. Retaliation Logged.

---

⟡ SWANK Fitness-to-Practise Ledger ⟡

“He Enabled Harm. We Filed for Fitness.”
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/EDWARD-KENDALL/RBKC
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_SWE_Complaint_EdwardKendall_DisabilityRetaliation_RBKC.pdf

---

I. The Role Was “Safeguarding Manager.” The Conduct Was Institutional Enabling.

This is not a character complaint.
It is a regulatory submission filed with Social Work England concerning Edward Kendall’s actions as Safeguarding Manager for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC).

What he did not say —
What he endorsed —
What he helped bury —

is now formally recorded as professional misconduct.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• That Edward Kendall:

  • Responded to formal complaints with strategic delay and vague summaries

  • Defended social workers who breached communication adjustments and legal boundaries

  • Attempted to close safeguarding complaints despite live evidence of:

    • Verbal coercion

    • Retaliatory escalation

    • False medical referrals

• That his handling constituted:

  • Disability discrimination by omission

  • Negligent supervision of subordinate misconduct

  • And a procedural cover strategy masked as polite communication

This wasn’t safeguarding.

It was reputation protection — at the public’s expense.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because silence from a safeguarding manager is not neutrality — it is collusion in slow motion.

We filed this because:

• The subject was disabled

• The abuse was reported

• The breaches were visible

• And Edward Kendall did nothing but soften the language around institutional harm

Let the record show:

• The safeguarding risk came from the service

• The harm was medical and administrative

• The complaint is not emotional — it is structural

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept safeguarding roles used as buffer zones for liability.
We do not allow managers to hide behind process when their silence enables misconduct.
We do not tolerate councils that weaponise medical conditions and then assign safeguarding officers to “contain” the fallout.

Let the record show:

The harm was enabled.
The officer was named.
The file was sent.
And the archive — made it public.

This wasn’t mismanagement.
It was calculated neutrality in the face of documented retaliation.

---

⟡ 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.

---

The Child Protection Plan Reads Like a Parody

 📎 SWANK Dispatch: “What Are We Worried About?” Apparently… Everything.

🗓️ 15 March 2024
Distributed the day after the conference. Noelle’s breath had still not returned.

Filed Under: child protection escalation, Section 47 theatre, mental health surveillance, homeschooling panic, father contact obsession, RBKC procedural mimicry, institutional redundancy, over-visit strategy, disability erased

---

“Children to be seen and deemed safe.”
By whom?
Against what metric?
And using what evidence of harm?”
— Polly Chromatic, subject of a plan written by people who haven’t met her

---

This Conference Outline Plan, distributed on 15 March 2024, outlines Westminster City Council’s official child protection response to... a mother who homeschools, writes too well, and breathes irregularly due to asthma.

Among the stated “worries”:

• Mental health concerns raised vaguely by unnamed health professionals, neighbours, and hotel staff

• No contact with the children’s father, despite no safeguarding concern related to him

• Home education conducted without “professional oversight”

• Children not regularly seen by professionals, despite their excellent health

---

📌 I. The Plan as Bureaucratic Performance

Concern	Required Action	Translation
Mental health questions	Polly must undergo assessment	“We’re uncomfortable with her tone.”
Homeschooling structure	Education team must inspect home	“We don’t control your teaching, so we must control your house.”
No father contact	Must provide contact details	“We’re building a network of informants.”
Children not seen by professionals	Mandatory social worker visits every 10 days	“Your success without us is suspicious.”

---

🧠 II. Safety Goals or Surveillance Goals?

The “safety goals” are laughably generic:

• “Children to be seen and deemed safe in the home”

• “Polly to access support”

• “Father to be contacted”

There is no evidence of harm, no incident outlined, and no grounding in actual safeguarding thresholds. What exists instead is institutional projection — an assumption that home education, articulate language, and medical documentation are signs of danger.

---

🧾 SWANK Commentary

When a document this vague
is used to justify state intrusion,
you are no longer operating
under child protection law.

You are rehearsing a role
called “concern.”

A role that requires
no evidence,
no logic,
and no familiarity
with the family in question.

---

He Ignored the Risk Notification. We Filed to the Regulator.

---

⟡ The Social Worker Who Investigated My Breathing, Not Their Conduct ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/KENDALL-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_SWE_Complaint_EdwardKendall_SafeguardingRetaliation_DisabilityBreach_EthicsViolation.pdf

---

I. He Ignored the Risk Notification. We Filed to the Regulator.

This complaint to Social Work England (SWE) names Edward Kendall, a registered social worker whose actions — or rather, legally significant inactions — include:

• Failing to acknowledge or respond to a written-only adjustment

• Permitting retaliatory safeguarding procedures to proceed unchecked

• Refusing to intervene in known breaches of disability rights

• Contributing to a culture of procedural gaslighting via plausible omission

He didn’t raise the alarm.
He buried it in polite silence.

---

II. What He Saw. What He Didn’t Say.

Kendall had access to:

• Formal written-only communication policies

• Documented asthma collapse, trauma diagnoses, and risk flags

• Retaliatory communications from colleagues

• Evidence of safeguarding escalation with no statutory basis

Yet:

• He said nothing

• He stopped nothing

• He endorsed everything — by doing nothing at all

In safeguarding, silence isn’t neutrality.
It’s endorsement, disguised as deference.

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because ignoring a breach is not ethics — it is complicity.
Because silence is not support when violence is procedural.
Because when one’s job is to supervise risk and one instead supervises harm, we file the whole team.

Let the record show:

• The disability was declared

• The safeguarding was retaliatory

• The silence was supervisory

• And SWANK — filed it all, with citations

This is not about one oversight.
It is an institutional hush, now archived in PDF.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that ethics exist merely in tone.
We do not accept that social workers can spectate harm without consequence.
We do not accept the logic of "I didn’t know" when the inbox says otherwise.

Let the record show:

The harm was documented.
The file was emailed.
The adjustment was ignored.
And SWANK — filed the supervisor alongside the breach.

This isn’t whistleblowing.
It’s evidentiary maintenance — and we keep everything.

---

---

---